A Follow-Up To The Idiots In The Senate

Our readers know that this is a horse we’re going to beat to death. According to this morning’s Washington Times, the Democrats are gearing for a "new style" filibuster on some upcoming nominees, and one nominee up right now that they obviously have reservations to. Marcie posted the whole thing up this morning for our first post of the day, and I’m following up with it because, in our opinions, this is the most important domestic issue on the table. Not just for the overall issue of nominees being prevented from moving forward, but because the Senate Democrats are undermining the president’s duty to nominate people, and therefore, they’re undermining the Constitution.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050613-122507-2767r.htm

The new filibusters are not based publicly on ideologies -- as with several of the nominees to the federal bench -- but on demands for additional information from the administration.

OK. I have a news flash for the Democrats: You’re not getting the State Department files on Bolton. You’re not cleared for them, and based on what has happened in the past with such documents (Harry Reid comes to mind) you idiots can’t be trusted with keeping that information confidential. You have dragged everyone out of the woodwork that you could to prevent Bolton’s nomination. You’ve disregarded the man’s accomplishments in favor of hyping up allegations that he "mistreated" people under him. Give me a break. I’ve worked for employers before that yell at employees for their stupid mistakes. I’ve had employers that refuse to take advice that I give them. Bolton isn’t some Holly-weird created monster. He’s an official that when tasked with a job, he gets it done. And he’s the sort of individual that expects the best from the people below him.

Also, Democrats led by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts stopped a federal appeals court nominee last week by demanding that more of his unpublished legal opinions be provided to them.

Last week, however, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee demanded that Judge Boyle's nomination wait another week and that the Bush administration produce more of his unpublished opinions. Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican, reluctantly agreed.

"Senator Kennedy was very upset with the failure of the unpublished opinions to be unearthed, or at least some of them," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat.

Unpublished legal opinions? OK, Senator Kennedy, where is the White House supposed to get those from. I’m sure they can obtain them, but it’s not going to be quick, nor will it be easy. And I’m upset at Specter for playing these games with the Democrats. Dammit, these people have been waiting for what seems like eternity to have their votes, and get down to business. And I’m so sorry that Sen. Kennedy is "very upset" at not getting his way. I’m sure that the "esteemed" senator from Massachusetts would be "very upset" to learn that many in America don’t like the fact that he still has a job. I wonder if he’d be "very upset" to know that many people in this nation consider him an embarrassment; a man who can’t hold a candle compared to his two brothers. Pitiful. I could care less what Uncle Teddy’s "very upset" about; America’s ticked at his side of the aisle for their continued antics. And I've recently found out that the objection to Boyle has little to do with unpublished opinions, but rather his "reversal rate", which is at about 7.5; the national average is around 9.4

"We'll have to see what happens," he said. "First, we want to see if there's a good-faith effort to get them. It is hard to get unpublished opinions.

Is this the same "good-faith" effort that Schumer wants to see out of the White regarding nominees, as he is on record as stating yesterday? Is this the "mother-may-I" approach that Schumer would prefer? Look, the administration will either find them, or they won’t. It’s that simple. But these decisions have no bearing as to whether or not Boyle should move forward. His record as a judge speaks for itself.

I believe we addressed this issue this past weekend. It doesn’t matter what a judge personally believes. What matters is whether or not their record shows that they interpret the law properly, and follow the precedents of the law that are virtually set in stone. If they do, then where’s the problem? Of course, the Democrats don’t want judges like that. They want to maintain their control over the judiciary with activist jurists, so naturally, they’re going to oppose people like Boyle, like Kavanaugh, like Myers, like Luttig, etc.

When Mr. Bolton was nominated, many Democrats announced their opposition because of his harsh statements about the United Nations.

But by the time Mr. Bolton's nomination reached the floor three weeks ago, Democrats had boiled down all their objections to one demand. They refused to allow a final up-or-down vote until the White House releases specific information about Mr. Bolton's time as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security.

When the White House refused, Democrats voted to filibuster, arguing that it was a matter of protecting the Senate as an institution.

So, originally, it was his attitude toward their precious, corrupt institution. (Not the Senate, the UN) Now, it’s over documents pertaining to his work as the Undersecretary of State when he was dealing with arms control matters. I stated it above, and I’ll repeat it again. You’re not getting the files, and if the administration caves on this, I’m done with them. Screw the "Not One Dime" campaign. There were plenty of red states in the last election. I’ll bring it down to "Not One More Red Cent."

And what is this garbage about protecting the Senate? The overall job of a Senator is to "protect and defend" the US Constitution, and the nation as a whole, not their jobs. And quite frankly, their jobs aren’t at stake over this nomination. Bolton’s not being nominated as "Emperor" (shameless Star Wars plug there), he’s being nominated as the new US Ambassador to the UN. He’s worked with the UN before, and has done an excellent job in dealing with them. No one in the UN is complaining about Bolton, which raised my eyebrows, but then I had to remind myself that the UN and it’s opinions in this matter are entirely irrelevant. The Democrats don’t want the man there, which tells me he’ll do a good job there.

"I think it's important that we recognize that the White House has an obligation to respond to a branch of government that is its equal," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said last week. "That's hard for the administration to accept, but I think they're going to have to accept that before this Bolton thing moves on any more."

Reid’s a moron. Is the Senate equal to the White House? Not in the least. Congress, as a whole, is equal to the White House. "Three separate, but equal" branches of government is what the Framers assembled. Congress is one branch. The Senate may be separate from the House, but their power together equals that of the White House. Can the Senate, on it’s own, overturn a presidential veto? No. It takes both houses of Congress to do that.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law. Article I, Section 7, Clause 2

Pretty cut and dry. The Senate’s not equal to the White House. Thank you, Sen. Reid for reattending my class on Constitution 101.

When a deal was reached last month on judicial filibusters, nominees such as Judge Boyle were not mentioned.

Democrats have expressed displeasure about Judge Boyle's conservative legal thinking, but whether that amounts to an "extraordinary circumstance" -- grounds for filibuster under last month's deal -- has not been determined.

If Democrats mount a filibuster that Republican signers to the deal consider frivolous, then the "nuclear option" to ban judicial filibusters altogether would be back on the table.

The deal, in and of itself, is unconstitutional, and should have been ruled as such by the Chair in the Senate. No rule, no regulation, no order may be contradictory to the Constitution. Senate Rule XXII, and this deal, grant extra-Constitutional powers to the Senate. I even disagreed vehemently over Frist’s attempt to negotiate by offering 100 hours of debate on nominees. Again, it’s extra-Constitutional, and shouldn't have been entertained.

The Constitution is clear on nominees. And precedent laid down and accepted for 200-plus years can’t just be discarded because one side or the other doesn’t want to play by these rules. Again, once more—with feeling—I cite the president’s powers:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

"Advice" has always come when the nominee reaches the committee in question. (In the case of judges, it is the Judiciary Committee; in the case of Bolton, it’s the Foreign Relations Committee.) That is where the debates, the fighting, the arguing, and all the contention is laid out. If one side doesn’t like the nominee, fine. Stop him from leaving the committee. If you can’t, then when it comes time for "Consent"—that meaning that the Senate will vote yea or nay on his/her appointment—you can try to stop them there. But you can’t filibuster them. They’re not a piece of legislation. They’re a nominee, and the powers of the president and the Senate are very precise.

I join my other half in arguing for punishment against the Republicans that struck that deal. Not only did they decide to put together a deal that was unconstitutional, but they basically stabbed their party in the back when the leadership was ready to put the Constitution back to the way it was. I’m deeply offended by these seven senators and their self-serving actions. I’m absolutely embarrassed at Sen. McCain who hails from my state.

And no, Boyle wasn’t included in the deal. Neither was Brett Kavanaugh or Michael Luttig. Myers will be "extraordinary" simply because of where he’s headed (The Ninth "Circus" Court) should he receive confirmation. I don’t like what I’ve read about McConnell; he sounds too much like Souter. However, just because I dislike him doesn’t mean the man doesn’t deserve his confirmation hearings, or a straight up-or-down vote. (I will be upset if he’s ever nominated to the USSC; we have enough activist judges there now, we don’t need anymore.)

This war is just starting to heat up. This next little bit comes from Business Weekly. The link below will take you to the full article.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_25/b3938090.htm

Lined up against the White House's judicial point men are a handful of liberal warriors with nearly two decades of experience at the barricades. In 1987, Henderson, Nan Aron of the Alliance for Justice, Ralph G. Neas of People for the American Way (PFAW), and a few other current Coalition leaders spearheaded the campaign to deny former D.C. Court of Appeals Judge Robert Bork a seat on the Supreme Court. Their "Block Bork" blitz changed the face of confirmation politics by elevating character issues to the same level as judicial philosophy. The same players came together again four years ago to contest John Ashcroft's nomination to lead the Justice Dept.

It lost that struggle but vowed to get better results the next time.Fresh off a successful dress rehearsal -- the fight to preserve judicial filibusters in the Senate -- the Coalition is preparing for the big show. Liberals call the war ahead even more crucial than Bork or Ashcroft. Given the current court's penchant for 5-4 opinions, adding a strong conservative could tip the scales on issues from limiting abortion rights to curbing government's ability to regulate business. "With one more right-wing nominee, more than 100 Supreme Court precedents could be overturned," Neas thunders.

These people will stop at nothing to maintain the status quo their activist jurists have established. And yes, they’re right, to a point. With so many USSC decisions being closely divided another conservative originalist could tip the scales. These people have had fifty-plus years of control on the judiciary, and they’re not about to simply go away quietly. This war is more important than any other cultural war we’ve experienced in this nation.

But there are those on the Left that recognize the damage the Democrats are doing to themselves with these petty fights. Harold Ickes weighed in halfway through the piece.

One problem is that some of the Dems' top political players are so far sitting out the impending donnybrook over the courts. "A big fight over judges does not benefit Democrats or the country," says ex-Clinton consigliere Harold Ickes, an architect of the Democrats' 2004 campaign. "We just look like obstructionists."

Ah, that just goes to show there is some sanity left in the party of the Democrats. Too bad it’s not a shared asset in the halls of the Senate.

Publius II